Discovery BoxGenesis 20:3
Context20:3 But God appeared 1 to Abimelech in a dream at night and said to him, “You are as good as dead 2 because of the woman you have taken, for she is someone else’s wife.” 3
Genesis 20:1
Context20:1 Abraham journeyed from there to the Negev 4 region and settled between Kadesh and Shur. While he lived as a temporary resident 5 in Gerar,
Genesis 3:5
Context3:5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open 6 and you will be like divine beings who know 7 good and evil.” 8
Job 4:13
Context4:13 In the troubling thoughts 9 of the dreams 10 in the night
when a deep sleep 11 falls on men,
Daniel 2:19
Context2:19 Then in a night vision the mystery was revealed to Daniel. So Daniel praised 12 the God of heaven,
Daniel 7:2
Context7:2 Daniel explained: 13 “I was watching in my vision during the night as 14 the four winds of the sky 15 were stirring up the great sea. 16
Daniel 7:13
Context7:13 I was watching in the night visions,
“And with 17 the clouds of the sky 18
one like a son of man 19 was approaching.
He went up to the Ancient of Days
and was escorted 20 before him.
[20:3] 2 tn Heb “Look, you [are] dead.” The Hebrew construction uses the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) with a second person pronominal particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) with by the participle. It is a highly rhetorical expression.
[20:3] 3 tn Heb “and she is owned by an owner.” The disjunctive clause is causal or explanatory in this case.
[20:1] 4 tn Or “the South [country]”; Heb “the land of the Negev.”
[20:1] 5 tn Heb “and he sojourned.”
[3:5] 6 tn Or “you will have understanding.” This obviously refers to the acquisition of the “knowledge of good and evil,” as the next statement makes clear.
[3:5] 7 tn Or perhaps “like God, knowing.” It is unclear how the plural participle translated “knowing” is functioning. On the one hand, יֹדְעֵי (yodÿ’e) could be taken as a substantival participle functioning as a predicative adjective in the sentence. In this case one might translate: “You will be, like God himself, knowers of good and evil.” On the other hand, it could be taken as an attributive adjective modifying אֱלֹהִים (’elohim). In this case אֱלֹהִים has to be taken as a numerical plural referring to “gods,” “divine beings,” for if the one true God were the intended referent, a singular form of the participle would almost certainly appear as a modifier. Following this line of interpretation, one could translate, “You will be like divine beings who know good and evil.” The following context may favor this translation, for in 3:22 God says to an unidentified group, “Look, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” It is probable that God is addressing his heavenly court (see the note on the word “make” in 1:26), the members of which can be called “gods” or “divine beings” from the ancient Israelite perspective. (We know some of these beings as messengers or “angels.”) An examination of parallel constructions shows that a predicative understanding (“you will be, like God himself, knowers of good and evil,” cf. NIV, NRSV) is possible, but rare (see Gen 27:23, where “hairy” is predicative, complementing the verb “to be”). The statistical evidence strongly suggests that the participle is attributive, modifying “divine beings” (see Ps 31:12; Isa 1:30; 13:14; 16:2; 29:5; 58:11; Jer 14:9; 20:9; 23:9; 31:12; 48:41; 49:22; Hos 7:11; Amos 4:11). In all of these texts, where a comparative clause and accompanying adjective/participle follow a copulative (“to be”) verb, the adjective/participle is attributive after the noun in the comparative clause.
[3:5] 8 sn You will be like divine beings who know good and evil. The serpent raises doubts about the integrity of God. He implies that the only reason for the prohibition was that God was protecting the divine domain. If the man and woman were to eat, they would enter into that domain. The temptation is to overstep divinely established boundaries. (See D. E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God [PTMS], 25.)
[4:13] 9 tn Here too the word is rare. The form שְׂעִפִּים (sÿ’ippim, “disquietings”) occurs only here and in 20:2. The form שַׂרְעַפִּים (sar’appim, “disquieting thoughts”), possibly related by dissimilation, occurs in Pss 94:19 and 139:23. There seems to be a connection with סְעִפִּים (sÿ’ippim) in 1 Kgs 18:21 with the meaning “divided opinion”; this is related to the idea of סְעִפָּה (sÿ’ippah, “bough”). H. H. Rowley (Job [NCBC], 47) concludes that the point is that like branches the thoughts lead off into different and bewildering places. E. Dhorme (Job, 50) links the word to an Arabic root (“to be passionately smitten”) for the idea of “intimate thoughts.” The idea here and in Ps 139 has more to do with anxious, troubling, disquieting thoughts, as in a nightmare.
[4:13] 10 tn Heb “visions” of the night.
[4:13] 11 tn The word תַּרְדֵּמָה (tardemah) is a “deep sleep.” It is used in the creation account when the
[7:2] 13 tn Aram “answered and said.”
[7:2] 14 tn Aram “and behold.”
[7:2] 15 tn Or “the heavens.” The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) may be translated “heavens” or “sky” depending on the context.
[7:2] 16 sn The referent of the great sea is unclear. The common view that the expression refers to the Mediterranean Sea is conjectural.
[7:13] 17 tc The LXX has ἐπί (epi, “upon”) here (cf. Matt 24:30; 26:64). Theodotion has μετά (meta, “with”) here (cf. Mark 14:62; Rev 1:7).
[7:13] 18 tn Or “the heavens.” The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) may be translated “heavens” or “sky” depending on the context.
[7:13] 19 sn This text is probably the main OT background for Jesus’ use of the term “son of man.” In both Jewish and Christian circles the reference in the book of Daniel has traditionally been understood to refer to an individual, usually in a messianic sense. Many modern scholars, however, understand the reference to have a corporate identity. In this view, the “son of man” is to be equated with the “holy ones” (vv. 18, 21, 22, 25) or the “people of the holy ones” (v. 27) and understood as a reference to the Jewish people. Others understand Daniel’s reference to be to the angel Michael.
